The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Business

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why is there a table in the Chamber? I always thought that in a voting Chamber such as this, no one was allowed to say how a matter would be settled. I understand that the table is there because Members think that they are going to be able to change their position. The table could have been brought in later, if that was the decision of the House, rather than jumping to the conclusion that this was a rubber-stamp Assembly that would do what the powers that be want it to do.

Mr Speaker: The Member is wrong. The table is there so that if a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister are elected —

Mr Peter Robinson: That is an assumption as well.

Mr Speaker: It might be so, but that is another matter.
If a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister are elected, they will be able to come forward, one to each side of the table, to take the Pledge of Office. The Member was erroneous in thinking that it was related to re-designation.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: You must be bitten by the same flea —

Mr Speaker: Order.

Speaker’s Business

Mr Speaker: I must advise the House that owing to a personal and family engagement, I will not be able to be in the House on Monday 5 November.

Assembly Standing Orders

Mr Speaker: If the motion is moved, the debate will last for no more than one hour. The proposers of the motion and the single amendment on the Marshalled List will each be given no more than seven minutes. All other speeches, including the winding-up speeches, will be limited to five minutes. The vote on the substantive motion will be on a cross-community basis, but the vote on the amendment will be on a simple majority basis.

Ms Jane Morrice: I beg to move
That the following amendment to Standing Orders be made: In Standing Order 3(8), line 2, delete all after "during" and insert
"an Assembly session. Any such change takes effect immediately after notification in writing is submitted to the Speaker."
There is confusion about the motion, the motives of the Women’s Coalition, and the legitimacy of what we hope will be the end result. I want to clarify our proposal and our reason for making it.
The motion is not about the principle of re-designation. Any Member of the Assembly has the right to change his or her designation. The rules of the House rightly make provision for that. A Member’s ability to change designation allows for the art of political persuasion. That is what politics is about. If a Unionist, a Nationalist or "Other" is persuaded by the political position of his or her opposite number, that Member can change designation. That is a logical argument. That is normal politics.
Our reason for tabling the motion is not that we have been persuaded to change our identity. The cross- community nature of our electorate enables us to do that. Some DUP Members have described that as "political cross-dressing". The accurate description is "cross-community". It is unfortunate that people cannot recognise that.
We are a coalition of Unionists, Nationalists and "Others". We draw our membership and our votes from all three designations. We have never claimed to be a party of the centre. We do not attempt to persuade one another of the merits of our different cultural, political, religious and constitutional beliefs. We attempt to understand and respect one another’s differences, listen to one another, and learn from one another. We first signed the Roll in the Chamber as Unionist/ Nationalist/Other. When that designation was not accepted we agreed to designate as "Inclusive Other". We want to change that designation in order to be consistent with the diversity of our coalition. If the motion is passed, my Colleague Monica McWilliams will re-designate as Nationalist, and I will re-designate as Unionist.
That does not mean that we are joining new political parties. We remain the Women’s Coalition. It is a means of expressing the diverse, cross-community identity of our party. I have explained that the issue of re-designation itself is not up for debate this morning. The motion concerns the timing of such a move, and it is not only about its immediate effect but the amount of time that we recommend should elapse before any other change would be considered.
The choice to change designation can often depend on a change in the political context. The speed of that change, as we all know very well, is totally unpredictable. The timing of this change is crucial, not only because of the looming end of the six-week deadline for the Assembly but as a response to the highly significant events of the last 10 days. I refer specifically to the move by the IRA to decommission its weapons. We could not have predicted 30 days ago that the IRA would make such a momentous move and that David Trimble would put his Ministers back into Government. — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. I am finding it difficult to hear the Member.

Ms Jane Morrice: Thirty days ago we could not have predicted that we would be facing one of the most crucial votes in the Assembly. If we had known that the IRA was about to do what we had been asking of it for years, we might have expected very little opposition. Perhaps we should have known better.
If, as a result of today’s vote, we do not respond positively to these events and do not get ourselves out of this political limbo and restore stable power-sharing government to Northern Ireland, we will give the opponents of decommissioning the opportunity to say "I told you so". This amendment to Standing Orders may appear to be procedural, but it is much more than that. It is about making our votes count. It is ironic to think that our votes will not count if the motion does not pass. Our votes have no value otherwise. The motion provides an opportunity for us all to change designation. I urge others to take that opportunity.
The Women’s Coalition got into politics to make a difference. Our voters will not allow us to sit on our hands and allow the Assembly to fall apart, and neither will the people who supported the Good Friday Agreement.

Mr Speaker: Order. I must ask the Member to bring her remarks to a close.

Ms Jane Morrice: If this vote can make a difference, we are prepared to take that risk.

Mr Speaker: Order.
I have received one amendment to the motion, which has been accepted and is published on the Marshalled List in the name of Mr Peter Robinson.

Mr Peter Robinson: I beg to move the following amendment to the motion: In line 2, delete "an Assembly session" and insert
"the life of an Assembly"
and in line 2 delete "immediately" and insert
"45 calendar days".
About four or five years ago several politicians from Northern Ireland went to South Africa, among them the leader-in-waiting of the SDLP and myself. During that trip many of us found that one of the valuable mechanisms employed in the process in South Africa was the concept of sufficient consensus. We came back during the early part of the "talks about talks", which later became the talks themselves, and expounded on the virtue of ensuring that in a divided society a mechanism was in place to secure support from both sections of the community for whatever major decisions were to be taken.
That was enshrined in the rules through a fairly elaborate formula in the talks process. Since then it has found its way into our Standing Orders in a formula that is still elaborate, though less so. It is now known as "designation". The principle behind it is that in a divided society, whether we like it or not, it is not sufficient to carry the support of only one section of the community. We Unionists found that out to our cost during the period of the old Stormont Parliament. Unionists were happy with the institutions and would have been happy for them to go on. Nationalists, however, were not happy, and the institutions fell. Nationalists would have been content for the power-sharing Executive to continue. Unionists were not content, and they brought it down. It was recognised that there needed to be widespread support. That was the virtue that was enshrined in the Belfast Agreement, the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and Standing Orders.
The reality for society in Northern Ireland, whether or not people voted for the Belfast Agreement, was that a safeguard was placed in that agreement. It appears in strand one and 2, under the heading "Safeguards". That is where the issue of designation appears. It is a safeguard for both communities. No key decision can be made unless there is the support of both sections of the community.
Therefore it seems strange that some Members who say that they are here to save the Belfast Agreement want to break it. The only permissible and valid reason for re-designation would be if someone genuinely wished to become either a Unionist or a Nationalist.
Neither the Belfast Agreement or the Northern Ireland Act 1998 make any reference to re-designation. However, the Assembly — and the Committee set up by the Assembly — recognised that such a situation might arise. Therefore the Assembly provided for a change of designation. When that decision was taken, it must have been known that some unprincipled Members might attempt to use this mechanism to achieve a result different from that intended by the legislation. The Assembly must have known that Members might attempt, for convenience, or for some spurious reason, to change their designation to affect an outcome.
For that reason two qualifications were set down in Standing Orders. One was that 30 days had to pass. This meant that a Member could not decide one day to change designation and impact on the outcome of a vote; a period had to elapse. That was the safeguard against such abuse. The second qualification was that the re-designation had to remain in place for the life of the Assembly. This meant that if re-designation were not being sought for a genuine reason, a Member would have to think twice about it.
The purpose of the motion is to set aside those safeguards. The Women’s Coalition wants to set them aside because the proposed re-designation of its two Members is not based on a genuine reason. Re-designation is not being sought because Monica McWilliams wants to be a Nationalist and Jane Morrice wants to be a Unionist. I can say that with certainty because they said so publicly. This week, they said that their re-designation would be for the "sole aim" — no other alternatives — of saving the agreement. It was not being sought because they had genuinely changed their designation; it was being sought for the "sole" political purpose of saving the agreement. It is abundantly clear that the Women’s Coalition’s reason for re-designation is not valid according to Standing Orders, the Northern Ireland Act 1998, or the Belfast Agreement.
Some Members might say that this suits them, although it is not in line with what was intended. However, think of the mischief that could be caused if this re-designation is permitted to take place. That is why I tabled my amendment. It further removes the temptation for Members to use re-designation for a spurious and false purpose. My amendment extends to beyond six weeks the time frame in which to give notice, a period that might, in some people’s minds, be a useful interval for re-designation.
The bottom line for the Assembly is that if this re-designation is permitted, what is there to stop a bunch of Unionists from either party, after an election perhaps, from re-designating themselves for a moment as Nationalists? What if Sinn Féin got its nose in front of the SDLP and thought that one of its members was going to become Deputy First Minister? What would happen — a re-designation, some sidestepping, some sleight of hand?

Mr Speaker: Order, the Member’s time is up.

Mr Alban Maginness: The SDLP will support the motion to amend Standing Orders. I listened with interest to Peter Robinson. It is important to emphasise that he supported the concept of re-designation from the outset, as indeed did the DUP. Mr Robinson referred to his visit to South Africa, from where the concept emerged. There is, therefore, no principled opposition to the motion by the DUP. It is opposing the motion for party political reasons. Standing Orders clearly permit this procedure, and if the motion is carried, the Women’s Coalition will be exercising a right enshrined in them.
Mr Robinson said that there are safeguards in the procedure for re-designation. A fundamental safeguard is that Standing Orders can only be changed with cross- community support. Cross-community support is the real safeguard. If the Assembly decides, on the basis of cross-community support, that re-designation is a proper course of action, the change will be made. The proposition by the Women’s Coalition is not an unprincipled one. It is being made for a good purpose, for a valid reason, as explained by the representative of the Women’s Coalition, a party which is making an important and constructive contribution to the Assembly and to sustaining the agreement.
We all know the circumstances that gave rise to the motion. We are in a grave situation which calls for supportive action. The fate of the Assembly and the agreement should not be permitted to be in the hands of those least committed to the agreement. People should not be held to ransom by two quixotic Members. Is it not more credible that the Women’s Coalition should use its position to bolster the Assembly, which has done much constructive work for the community, and the agreement, which 71% of the people of Northern Ireland support? The DUP owes its places in the Assembly to that agreement, and some members of the DUP are secretly wishing that the situation would pass by and they could retain their positions here.
Should the future of the agreement and the Assembly be in the hands of maverick Members? The motion — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to hear the Member and therefore to maintain any semblance of order.

Mr Alban Maginness: The motion sensibly changes something that is quite arbitrary — the time period.
That is the essence of the motion. If Members wish to re-designate, they should not be held back by the artificial constrictions of an arbitrary time period. That is precisely what the proposed amendment to Standing Orders does. It does not change the nature of re-designation.
The SDLP supports the motion. It is in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland who voted for the agreement. I invite Members to support it.

Mr Peter Weir: I find myself in an unusual position in this debate, for two reasons. First, ironically, it would appear that I am the first and, possibly, the only Ulster Unionist Party member to speak in this debate. Secondly, and more importantly, I find myself defending the Belfast Agreement on this issue, possibly for the first and only time.
My position on the agreement has always been clear. Whether designation in the House was on the basis of Unionist, Nationalist or "Other", or on the basis of yes, no or John Taylor, I made it clear from day one that I did not regard the agreement as the best way forward. However, I am the only opponent of the agreement in the Chamber who was present on the first and last days of the talks, and I was a member of the Standing Orders Committee — which I freely admit as crimes to be taken into consideration.
We must examine the purpose of the clause in the agreement that relates to the designation of Unionists and Nationalists. It is no secret that, during the talks, Unionists took the view that they did not want people to be pigeonholed as Unionist, Nationalist or "Other". We felt that there was a danger that it would institutionalise sectarianism, and that it would lead to problems such as those experienced in Cyprus — which have been highlighted by Prof Anthony Alcock — where the designation of people in groups led to a double-veto situation.
However, as a result of strong pressure in the talks, the clause was agreed with the aim of creating a situation in which the interests of Unionists and Nationalists — not only in the Executive but on the Floor of the House — were protected by rights. The aim was that, if there were a vote, Unionists and Nationalists would genuinely have to support any measure of a cross- community nature. If that is the case — and it has been enshrined in the rules of the Assembly, it has worked to the detriment of Unionists at times and it has been there since day one — we tamper with it at our peril.
For example, if we allow instant re-designation, we could find ourselves in the situation where 28 Unionists re-designate themselves as Nationalists for a particular vote. That would constitute the necessary 40% of Nationalist support for any motion. However, that would clearly be a farce. It would drive a coach and horses through the rules and the intentions of the Assembly.
We are gathered here today for the serious purpose of electing a First Minister. I agree with remarks by David Trimble and others that the vote for First Minister should be based on the genuine wishes of the Unionist and Nationalist Members. There must be no sleight of hand. The key test is whether we will authorise sleight of hand. No matter how much the Women’s Coalition portrays itself as a coalition of Unionists, Nationalists and "Others", it is not —

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member give way?

Mr Peter Weir: Time is short, and Ms Morrice has already had her chance. The Women’s Coalition is designated as "Other". Its Members have not had a genuine conversion to Unionism. As Mr Kennedy said yesterday, one cannot become a Unionist overnight.
For the sake of argument, I might, in a vain attempt to boost my sex appeal, call myself Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt. I might even delude myself that I look like Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise. However, I am sure that I need not tell anyone in the House — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. While I understand the response of the House, we should nevertheless hear what the Member has to say.

Mr Peter Weir: I may succeed in deluding myself that I am Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise but, as I am sure Members from across the House will agree, no one else will be convinced.
There must be some integrity in the proceedings. If the Members from the Women’s Coalition are allowed to call themselves Unionist or Nationalist simply to get a particular vote through, not only will the terms of the agreement be abrogated but, more importantly, the Assembly will be turned into a farce and a circus. I urge Members to have the integrity to stand by their designations and ensure that Standing Orders remain as they are.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I want to make a couple of brief points — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot hear what the Member is saying. Please continue, Mr Maskey.

Mr Alex Maskey: On behalf of my party, I support the motion.
There are a number of safeguards in Standing Orders which have been approved by all parties and Members. Standing Orders have also been changed on a number of occasions. The principle of re-designation is not in question — the purpose of the motion is to enable re-designation to come into effect immediately. Some Members have suggested that this would mean that Members could re-designate after every meeting, every vote or every week. That is not the case. The change is designed to amend the Standing Order for an entire session, which I believe is a calendar year. The amendment to Standing Orders is not designed to enable any Member to re-designate willy-nilly. That is not the case at all.
Some Members, Peter Robinson included, mentioned various technicalities. It is fair to do that because Standing Orders are designed to ensure that business is run properly. Members are at liberty to change Standing Orders if they wish. Cross-community support is needed to secure any such changes, that is one of the safeguards.
Peter Robinson talked about South Africa and the need for sufficient consensus. However, South African logic resolved conflict through inclusion — not exclusion, which is what the DUP has been solely and exclusively about all of its political life. I do not see that party changing, no matter how its Members designate. It is important that Members such as Peter Robinson and the public who must listen to him realise that his amendment is about the politics of exclusion, not the politics of inclusion. Inclusion was at the core of conflict resolution in South Africa, and the principle of inclusion was recognised by over 70% of people across this island in the referenda that followed the Good Friday Agreement.
After this vote, it will be seen that almost 80 Members will have voted to make the necessary change to save the agreement. That is what the motion is designed to do. That shows that there are a number of parties, participants and elements in society who support a peace process and the agreement and who are prepared to make giant strides to save them. There are others, some of whom are in the Chamber today, who are bent on ensuring that the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process go down. Those people will be able to wallow in their anti-agreement, exclusive politics of the past. Whether or not an election is forced is not a matter for this debate. If there is an election, then so be it. The electorate will decide that the negative Members in the Chamber who base their lives on exclusion are from the DUP with, perhaps, Rag, Tag and Bobtail alongside them.

Mr David Ford: It is well established that the concept of designation has caused great problems for my Colleagues and me ever since it was introduced in the discussions that led to the agreement.
We made some of those concerns known when Standing Orders were discussed in autumn 1998. We did not accept an easy change of designation. Designations do not solve the problems of our divided society. The concept of designations as it exists must be removed, and tinkering with 30 days or 45 days or one minute does nothing to address the problem. We should examine why designations are problematic. We should ask those people who devised the system whether it is what is needed. We should ask those who supported the minute whether they are proud that what they agreed in March 1998 was incorporated into the Belfast Agreement on 10 April.
The motion — however well intentioned — does not address the fundamental issue. Peter Robinson referred to the South African experience and the need for sufficient consent. Clearly that is important. However, we must ask whether tinkering with Standing Orders addresses appropriately the problem of sufficient consent and whether having a very narrow majority in Unionism or Nationalism is an appropriate way to stop proceedings that are supported elsewhere in the House.
If Peter Weir were to go on record as supporting the agreement, I would be prepared to go on record as supporting him — at least in a sentence or two. He made an interesting point when he referred to the Unionist concern that designations entrench sectarianism and divisions. My party will not support designations and it will seek a more fundamental review. According to the current rules, there must be a majority of Unionists and of Nationalists to elect a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister. The candidate for First Minister wishes that to be a majority of "genuine" Unionists, and he can rest assured that we will not disrupt his concerns in that regard. We will not "dress up for Hallowe’en" as one Member described it. We will allow him to seek his majority among genuine Unionists, because the rule stating that our votes count for considerably less than those of others is fundamentally sick and wrong. Not only is that an insult to the five Alliance Members, it is also an insult to the many thousands who voted in May 1998 for non-sectarian politics. On their behalf, we will take no part in this charade of tinkering with Standing Orders. We will continue to work for proper change, to lobby Government and to make it clear that we do not accept that our society is divided into two tribes and that there is no coming and going between them. We do not accept that those who wish to stand outside the "two tribes" mentality do not have rights. Those who support us have exactly the same right as everyone else to have their voice heard in the Chamber.

Mr Cedric Wilson: The attempt by the Women’s Coalition to change Standing Orders to permit instant re-designation by any Member is no more than a cynical exploitation and abuse of the procedures of the House. It is an attempt to subvert and thwart the will of the majority of the Unionist community as represented by this side of the House.
The Women’s Coalition has revealed that the true purpose of the motion is to secure the reappointment of Mr David Trimble as First Minister.
It is worth reiterating several points on which the opposition of the wider Unionist community is based. If the Assembly falls today, Mr Martin McGuinness would like it portrayed internationally that the message from Unionists and from those he calls "rejectionist" is that they do not want a Roman Catholic about the place. That is not the case.
There is opposition in the community to Mr Trimble’s reappointment and the consequent establishment of an Executive. He and his Colleagues are well aware of that opposition. Mr Trimble knows that he does not have a broad base of support within his own party. He knows that the Unionist community has the mandate to state clearly what it rejects and opposes in today’s motion and Mr Trimble’s reappointment. The majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland say that they are opposed to the release of unrepentant terrorists; they are opposed to gunmen who front parties that are inextricably linked to terrorist organisations being placed in Government; and they are opposed to the destruction of the RUC.

Mr Speaker: Order. We must have silence. I am having difficulty hearing the Member speak.

Mr Cedric Wilson: It is well known that the Unionist community is unhappy with the prospect of Mr Trimble resuming his post of First Minister, thus parachuting back into position those who continue to front terrorism in Northern Ireland. Members such as Mr McGuinness wish to portray themselves as representatives of the Catholic community. Many Roman Catholics and Nationalists have as much difficulty as I do with Sinn Féin representatives masquerading as democrats who are supposed to subscribe completely to the democratic process. Thinking of people such as Patsy Gillespie, Mrs Jean McConville, and the other missing victims, I throw back in the Sinn Féin/IRA representatives’ faces their assumptions that they represent the decent Catholic community, or the law-abiding members of the Nationalist community.
When Unionists, I hope, reject the Women’s Coalition’s motion and, therefore, deprive Mr Trimble of his reappointment, let us be clear that it is not petty, vindictive score-settling against Mr Trimble; it is not an attempt to prevent people who genuinely want to re-designate from doing so. I make no apology for the message that my party will send out in opposing the Women’s Coalition’s motion and Mr Trimble’s reappointment — we remain adamantly and vehemently opposed to those who front terrorist organisations being in Government.
I remind Mr Trimble, as I told him that I would, that, in the Chamber three weeks ago, he said that even if the IRA were to hand in a small quantity of weapons for decommissioning, that would neither be a demonstration nor a guarantee that Sinn Féin was totally committed to the democratic process. That is absolutely correct; on behalf of my party, I would take the same position if the actions proposed by the Women’s Coalition were to put Mr Ervine, and those who front the Protestant terrorist organisations, into power. The House should send out a clear message today that it will not have people in Government who are linked to terrorists.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Has Cedric Wilson mentioned the motion? I have heard him talk only about terrorism. You should rule that he should stick to the motion under consideration.

Mr Speaker: Given that there is not too much time left, I ask Mr Wilson to continue.

Mr Cedric Wilson: It is clear that I hit the target when I mentioned Mr Ervine and his party’s association and affiliation with the Loyalist paramilitary groups that still terrorise innocent, decent members of both sides of the community.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: You’ll never find me hiding behind anyone, you eejit, shut up.

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot hear comments that I wish to hear, and I can hear comments that I do not wish to hear.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to look at the Hansard record of the debate and take some action based on remarks that you may not have heard from the Chair, but that are clearly audible to all in the Chamber.

Mr Speaker: I shall certainly read Hansard.

Mr David Ervine: Members who speak should always remember that someone else will follow them. There has been a lot of fun and laughter at every political crisis in the Chamber. There is entertainment and delight for those who celebrate crisis. I do not know how the rest of the Members feel, and I am not sure what is going on in people’s living rooms in this society, but I bet that people are terribly dismayed. People who have buried loved ones will wonder whether the end to instability will ever come. Instability and political violence are connected.
There is a clash between superiority and inferiority in the House. There are those who are superior and those who are inferior and, before we let people pick on the poor terrorists again, I am just talking about Unionism. There are those who take superior and laudable attitudes that are founded in morality. However, there are people who take a legalistic attitude, who say that they need absolute proof and that they must be absolutely certain. Such people say that certain other people could not be honest or reasonable because in 1902 those people were bad people or their granddads were bad people.

Mr Robert McCartney: It was 1984.

Mr David Ervine: It was 1974, "Lord Barrister".
We talk about, or say "Hear, hear" to sufficiency of consensus, and Mr Peter Robinson is correct that there was sufficiency of consensus in South Africa. However, I bet that he could not define it because the South Africans themselves could not define it. It was a process of negotiation and debate, and only when people felt they could move forward did they move forward. There was no defined mathematical formula for sufficiency of consensus.

Mr Peter Robinson: There was — the African National Congress.

Mr David Ervine: There was not.

Mr Peter Robinson: There was. Go and ask — [Interruption].

Mr David Ervine: We hear of the nonsense that the Women’s Coalition is trying to save the agreement — perhaps it is just trying to save lives.

Mr Peter Robinson: That is sick.

Mr David Ervine: It seems sick to me that the rotating Ministers are making a fool of the Executive. One Member has been in three different parties since he entered the Chamber, and we talk about commitment and determination and belief. The choice is very simple — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr David Ervine: The choice is very simple: we either make politics work and offer a model for dialogue and ways to resolve our difficulties, or we do not. I suppose some will be happy playing ‘Jingle Bells’ as they go up the garden path, rapping on doors and asking people to vote for them. However, I see the debilitating circumstances in the streets and the dangers and difficulties that people face. I wonder — [Interruption]. This is not a threat, or a suggestion that tries to play a violin to make everyone sad. It is a stark fact that the stinking evil of sectarianism and the brutality of violence are directly connected to the pathetic state of our politics. Some have guffawed and enjoyed this. Hansard and videotapes show that there are those who take delight in every crisis. I hope that none of my constituents suffer because of such people’s delight.

Mr Robert McCartney: Any institution that wishes to do something for posterity must be based on integrity and reason. Any institution that turns itself into an object of ridicule and contempt is almost bound to fail. There is no doubt that the motion tabled by the Women’s Coalition is a way of destroying the Assembly, and that it will make the Assembly an object of ridicule and contempt. Will people be Unionists or Nationalists for a day? Ah behold, the unfaithful stewards fleeth — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Robert McCartney: There is no doubt that there have been considerable questions about the political orientation of the Women’s Coalition for a long time. Some people might describe them as political hermaphrodites, while others might describe them as chameleons because they change colour in accordance with the issue under debate at any given time.
I wonder if there is any democratic integrity left in the parties opposite. I am well aware that some whom I respect within the SDLP must have grave misgivings about Mr Alban Maginness pledging his party’s support for this completely undemocratic motion. I have no doubt that those who have experience of Westminster and have some knowledge of the traditions of democratic procedure will be made unhappy by the suggestion that, by a simple vote, the orientation, description and designation of any Member can be changed to enable a certain vote and result to be obtained.
In the past, I have mentioned in the Assembly the example of the saint, Sir Thomas More. It was suggested to him that, because of the Act of Supremacy 1534 and the fact that Parliament was sovereign, he should give up what he believed and knew within himself to be true. In response to that proposition he said, "Tell me, Master Rich, can Parliament make of man a woman?" That was the essential issue — the thing was farcical because it flew in the face of reason. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Robert McCartney: In a rather more humorous address, Mr Weir made it evident just how daft, ridiculous and contemptible the motion is. To suggest that Jane Morrice can be a Unionist or Monica McWilliams a Nationalist at the flick of a switch creates all sorts of difficulties and problems for the future.

Ms Jane Morrice: We are a cross-community party.

Mr Robert McCartney: You are a cross-dressing party. You do not know who you are — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Robert McCartney: If the motion is successful, it will do more permanent damage to the Assembly institutions — for those who believe in them — than anything else. It will demonstrate beyond doubt the completely farcical nature of the provisions alleged to be democratic. It will store up infinite trouble for the future, and the Assembly will live to regret it. [Interruption].
Mr Durkan can mutter from a sedentary position. Yes, it might even cost him his job in the Assembly, so I can understand why he is muttering. The truth is that his job, and the jobs of others, will be saved at the expense of democratic principle, respect and integrity.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Mr Peter Robinson: I have listened to what are intended to be the reasons for supporting the motion. They can all be summed up in one sentence: anything is permissible to save the agreement. That is their argument, and it is the only one that they have. It has nothing to do with the fact that this provision is intended to be a safeguard. They are happy to sweep it to the side when they choose.
In my earlier remarks, I tried to alert people to what they are walking into. The SDLP and Sinn Féin have said that they support this easy switch that has been proposed by the Women’s Coalition. They support the idea that people can re-designate on a whim. To us it is an abuse of Standing Orders. However, they want it to be permissible for a Standing Order to allow Unionists or Nationalists to move from one side to the other in order to pass a provision through the Assembly.
The purpose of the safeguard was to ensure that Unionists and Nationalists would be content. When Members walk through the "Ayes" Lobby they will be sweeping away that safeguard. A lawyer has suggested the nonsense — and I can only guess as to whom his lecturer at law school might have been, but they are not in the Chamber to confirm it — that the safeguard lies in the requirement for cross-community support to change Standing Orders. The very thing they are undermining and tearing down is to be the safeguard that it will not happen. That seems to be a conundrum with no solution.
The second thing we are being told by the supporters of the motion is that there is no difference in outcome in allowing someone to change designation within 30 days or within a day. The clear message is that the Women’s Coalition wants to do this for a particular purpose. The reason they advocate stopping the period from being the "life of the Assembly" is that they intend to switch back before an election. They want to be designated as "Other" rather than as "Unionist", or "Nationalist" when they face the electorate. That is the reality of the situation.
My amendment seeks to cement the original and proper intention of the Standing Order, which is to ensure that the threshold is raised. The amendment will make it less attractive to use the provision for corrupt purposes by people wanting to change designation — falsely claiming that they are Unionist or Nationalist — in order to affect the outcome of a vote. My amendment takes temptation out of their hands by raising the threshold.
The sad reality is that once again there is an attempt — this time for the prospective First Minister — to hang on to the apron strings of the Women’s Coalition in order to get himself returned to office. What credibility can that have? It can have none. Mr Trimble says there can be none. On ‘Inside Politics’ last Saturday he said that re-designation by the Women’s Coalition simply would not be credible; nor would it be credible on the streets of Northern Ireland.
Effectively, the agreement is on a life support system, kept alive by dishonesty and sleight of hand. We have already seen some Unionists being prepared to abandon their manifesto commitments and go back on their commitments to the electorate in order to keep it going. During the past few years we have seen the Deputy First Minister resigning, with all the emoluments of office being swept away from him, and then suddenly heard that the resignation did not take place. This was all done to save the Belfast Agreement and keep it alive.
We have watched the Secretary of State trigger suspensions to restart the clock — again to keep the Belfast Agreement alive. Now we have deceitful re-designations when there is no change of heart on the part of those who wish to re-designate.
The truth, which is obvious to everyone who has not been hypnotised by this Provo-bolstering process, is that the agreement cannot exist without deceit, cheating, dishonesty and lies. It is a fraud, and is unacceptable in its existing form. That is why the electorate should have the opportunity to have its say and the opportunity to see it renegotiated.

Prof Monica McWilliams: What we have heard from the parties supporting the motion and, interestingly, the party opposing the motion, is that they do not have a problem with the Standing Order allowing re-designation. Had we not proposed our motion, they would never have proposed their amendment. It is the time period they have a problem with, not the principle.
If it is the time period that they have a problem with, I have to remind Mr Morrow, the former Minister for Social Development, that he had a problem with the time period contained in a Standing Order. If he had not had such a problem, on 15 October he would not have asked the Assembly to suspend Standing Order 40(1) in respect of the Final Stage of the Social Security Fraud Bill.
Sometimes the DUP has a problem with timing, and at others it does not. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. It is impossible to hear what the Member is saying, and therefore to be clear whether matters are happening in order. I ask all Members to restrain themselves during the speech, and I call Ms McWilliams to continue.

Prof Monica McWilliams: On 15 October the DUP did not have a problem with the timing when we changed that Standing Order. We have amended Standing Orders 12, 31, 41, 59 and 40, which allows a Budget Bill to proceed under accelerated passage. That was a major amendment to a Standing Order. If there is a problem with amending Standing Orders, let that be put to rest now. This is not a precedent.
Psychics try to read the minds of members of the Women’s Coalition and the party’s make-up, but we are Nationalists, Unionists and "Others", because of our party’s membership and its title, and because we appeal to a cross-community electorate. That has been on record since the first Assembly sitting.
Let us remind ourselves of who changed the Standing Order — none other than Mr Weir, the same Mr Weir who supports parts of the agreement. He supported the part that allows amendments to be made, and he wanted to change from seven days to 30 days. He does not have a problem with re-designation; he simply had a problem with the 30 days and wanted to change it to seven days. Today he has a problem with changing it from seven days to "an Assembly session".
John F Kennedy said "Ich bin ein Berliner" when he visited Berlin. He was very confident about his identity, as all Americans seem to be, and he had no problem on that day, in that crisis, with standing alongside the Berliners. His statement meant "I am with you", and we are saying today "We are with you". We are with the majority of the Assembly. If today’s vote were counted on a majority basis, it would go through, and the Assembly would have a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister in place by the end of the day.
Let me also remind Peter Robinson that I, too, visited South Africa while he was on his second visit there, along with Sinn Féin, before any ceasefire and before decommissioning. He was trying to understand the concept of sufficiency of consensus at a time when the DUP did not attend any meetings. The DUP changed the rules on that occasion, and he went on that visit.
We brought sufficiency of consensus to the Assembly, and the sufficiency of consensus referred to during the talks was different from that which exists in the Assembly today. From the talks came the triple-lock mechanism — majority of parties, cross-community consensus and majority of the entire number around the table. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. Please continue.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Thank you for calling order, Mr Speaker. The points have already been well made, and I have no intention of being politically offensive. Another party has that prerogative. I intend to make the points as they stand. We refer to politics as the art of the possible, and we have seen that to be the case with the rotation of the Ministers, as Mr Ervine has pointed out.
I must say that Mr Robinson’s little lime green jacket last night, on loan from the Department of the Environment, was a very fetching little number. No doubt it will have to go back to the Department of the Environment — or is it the Department for Regional Development?
We do not have a problem with our designation. It is integral to our party; it is legitimate; and it is legal.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 30; Noes 39.
Ayes
Mr Agnew, Ms Armitage, Mr Berry, Mr Boyd, Mr Campbell, Mr Carrick, Mr Clyde, Mr Dodds, Mr Douglas, Mr Gibson, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Kane, Mr McCartney, Rev Dr William McCrea, Mr Morrow, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mrs I Robinson, Mr M Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Roche, Mr Shannon, Mr Watson, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr C Wilson, Mr S Wilson.
Noes
Mr Attwood, Mr Bradley, Mr Byrne, Mrs Courtney, Ms de Brún, Mr A Doherty, Mr Durkan, Dr Farren, Mr Fee, Mr Gallagher, Ms Hanna, Dr Hendron, Mr G Kelly, Mr J Kelly, Ms Lewsley, Mr A Maginness, Mr Mallon, Mr Maskey, Mr McClelland, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McGrady, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McHugh, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMenamin, Mr McNamee, Ms McWilliams, Mr Molloy, Ms Morrice, Mr C Murphy, Mr M Murphy, Mrs Nelis, Mr O’Connor, Dr O’Hagan, Mr ONeill, Ms Ramsey, Ms Rodgers, Mr Tierney.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 65; Noes 30.
Ayes
Nationalist:
Mr Attwood, Mr Bradley, Mr Byrne, Mrs Courtney, Ms de Brún, Mr A Doherty, Mr Durkan, Dr Farren, Mr Fee, Mr Gallagher, Ms Hanna, Dr Hendron, Mr G Kelly, Mr J Kelly, Ms Lewsley, Mr A Maginness, Mr Mallon, Mr Maskey, Mr McClelland, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McGrady, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McHugh, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMenamin, Mr McNamee, Mr Molloy, Mr C Murphy, Mr M Murphy, Mrs Nelis, Mr O’Connor, Dr O’Hagan, Mr ONeill, Ms Ramsey, Ms Rodgers, Mr Tierney.
Unionist:
Dr Adamson, Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr B Bell, Dr Birnie, Mrs Carson, Mr Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Mr Dalton, Mr Davis, Sir Reg Empey, Mr Ervine, Mr Foster, Sir John Gorman, Mr Hamilton, Mr B Hutchinson, Lord Kilclooney, Mr Leslie, Mr McClarty, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Mr Nesbitt, Mr K Robinson, Mr Savage, Mr Trimble, Mr J Wilson.
Other:
Ms McWilliams, Ms Morrice.
Noes
Unionist:
Mr Agnew, Ms Armitage, Mr Berry, Mr Boyd, Mr Campbell, Mr Carrick, Mr Clyde, Mr Dodds, Mr Douglas, Mr Gibson, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Kane, Mr McCartney, Rev Dr William McCrea, Mr Morrow, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mrs I Robinson, Mr M Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Roche, Mr Shannon, Mr Watson, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr C Wilson, Mr S Wilson.
Total Votes 95 Total Ayes 65 ( 68.4%) Nationalist Votes 37 Nationalist Ayes 37 (100.0%) Unionist Votes 56 Unionist Ayes 26 ( 46.4%)
Main Question accordingly agreed to (cross-community vote).
Resolved:
In Standing Order 3(8), line 2, delete all after "during" and insert
"an Assembly session. Any such change takes effect immediately after notification in writing is submitted to the Speaker."
12.00

Re-Designation Letters

Mr Speaker: I have received two letters to be opened immediately if the motion to amend Standing Orders is passed by cross-community consent. As instructed, I will open the letters. [Interruption].
Order. I am not a Brad Pitt, nor is this any similar competition.
The first letter reads:
"Dear Speaker, I wish to change my designation in the Northern Ireland Assembly from the category ‘Other’ to ‘Unionist’. Jane Morrice".
The second letter reads:
"Dear Speaker, I wish to change designation from ‘Other’ to ‘Nationalist’. Yours sincerely, Monica McWilliams".
Under Standing Order 3(8), Members wishing to change their designation have to do so in writing, as is the case when choosing their designation in the first place. These two requests for change are in writing, and under the change in Standing Orders, they are operative immediately.

Election of First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Mr Speaker: Before we commence, I wish to explain how I propose to conduct proceedings. As Members will know, there is no procedure set down in Standing Orders, although a procedure was set down in the Initial Standing Orders. I discussed the matter through the usual channels, and it was agreed that we would follow that same procedure.
I will begin by asking for nominations. Members are reminded that under section 16(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, for a proposal to be valid, it must include nominations for both First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I will then ask for the proposal to be seconded, as required by Standing Order 14. Each nominee will then be asked if he or she is prepared to accept the nomination. I will then proceed to seek further nominations. If further proposals are made, the process will be repeated until there are no further nominations. At that point the House may, if it chooses, debate the proposals. I propose to conduct one debate on any and all proposals that are made, and no Member will be permitted to speak more than once, as the Initial Standing Orders provide.
I shall then put the question that the first pair of nominees be the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of the Assembly. Under section 16(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the vote will require the support of a majority of the Members voting in the election, a majority of the designated Nationalists voting and a majority of the designated Unionists voting.
Should the proposal be carried, I will ask those Members chosen to be First Minister and Deputy First Minister to affirm to the Assembly the Pledge of Office. As mentioned earlier, the Pledge of Office will be placed on the Table, and I will ask those voted through to come forward. If the motion is carried and both Members affirm the Pledge of Office, I will deem the other proposals to have fallen, irrespective of whether they have been put to the Assembly for decision. If the proposal is not carried, I shall put the question in relation to the next pair of nominees and so on as necessary until all nominations are exhausted.
The following times for the debate will apply. The debate will last no longer than one hour. Each proposer and seconder will be permitted to speak for up to seven minutes and other Members will have a maximum of five minutes.
Do we have any proposals?

Sir Reg Empey: I propose that the Rt Hon David Trimble, MP, MLA be First Minister and that Mr Mark Durkan, MLA be Deputy First Minister of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: Do we have a seconder?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I wish to second David Trimble for the post of First Minister and Mark Durkan for the post of Deputy First Minister.

Mr Speaker: Mr Trimble, do you accept the nomination for First Minister?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I accept the nomination.

Mr Speaker: Mr Durkan, do you accept the nomination for Deputy First Minister?

Mr Mark Durkan: I accept the nomination.

Mr Speaker: Are there any further proposals?
As there are no further proposals, the time for proposals has passed. Several Members have indicated that they wish to speak, and I remind them that they may speak only once in the debate.

Sir Reg Empey: Normally, we would have expected this debate to be of a more technical nature. However, the Assembly has become a crucible for the political frustrations of many Members, representing their communities’ frustration at the inability to advance the process at the speed that we would have liked.
Since the beginning of the process, those of us on these Benches have sought the full implementation of all parts of the agreement. That was what we were promised after the agreement was made in 1998. The then Secretary of State, Marjorie Mowlam, indicated that all parts of the agreement should proceed in parallel. Hitherto, that has not been the case. However, as a result of activity on the part of the Republican movement last week, this is the first time since April 1998 that all parts of the agreement have been implemented. It is important to state clearly on the record that this is the first time that all aspects of the agreement have proceeded according to plan.
With the stability that we believe should be afforded to the Assembly and to the political process, we want to proceed towards the elections due in May 2003. In the next 18 months we want the opportunity to show that the Assembly can deliver for the people that it represents. We believe that stability can be spread out into the community, and we want it to be given the opportunity to flourish.
Instability damages Northern Ireland; it damages our economy. After the events in the United States in September, the economy of Northern Ireland needs the stability, direction and leadership that can be provided in the Chamber. I do not believe that our economy and businesses and the jobs of the people that we represent will be better served by a direct rule Minister — no matter how well intentioned that person might be. It requires local knowledge, local effort and attention, and, in the relatively short time that the Administration has existed, we have proved that we are capable of delivering those things.
I return to the frustrations that are felt by some Members and by a large section of the Unionist community. Last week, we had good news from the de Chastelain commission. However, the contrast between the way in which that news was imparted and the way in which other parts of the arrangements that were entered into last week were revealed caused much anger.
For example, the de Chastelain commission, for reasons that I understand, decided — in the interests of securing the implementation of its mandate — that it was best to confirm that the process of decommissioning had commenced without giving the details that we all crave. That was its judgement. On the other hand, a film set was created in south Armagh. One almost expected Francis Ford Coppola or Steven Spielberg to appear behind the towers shouting "Action" when members of the press were flown into the area to witness the angle-grinding scene. The purpose of that exercise was to reinforce the confidence of a particular part of the community. However, the emphasis on that, against the relative obscurity of the decommissioning process, created a tension — [Interruption].

A Member: Total obscurity.

Sir Reg Empey: It was not total. That tension caused frustrations. However, my party and I believe that decommissioning has commenced. That is to be welcomed. It is a breakthrough and something that many Members, not far from where I am standing, never believed would be possible. We want to proceed now and get it completed, and we also want to get other people to start doing what they should have done three and a half years ago.
We should not allow our scepticism to plunge our Province into another political crisis that will have a significant impact. I do not believe that events on the streets are totally unrelated to events in the Assembly. We are supposed to be setting an example. From time to time, that has clearly not been happening.
After three and a half years of very hard work, we have achieved the set objectives of devolution and the commencement of decommissioning. We must bear in mind what our fellow citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom will think if, after reaching those objectives, we suddenly decide to plunge ourselves into a crisis. It does not profit any Unionist to make Northern Ireland appear ungovernable — that only benefits Republicanism, and it has been clear for some time that Republicans have already anticipated that opportunity.
However frustrated one may be about the lack of progress hitherto or the fact that the process is not as open as one would like it to be, that is not sufficient justification for creating a crisis and plunging us into a further period of uncertainty and instability. It is my contention that this motion should be allowed to proceed. The election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would provide stability and be the centre of our Administration. It would give the Assembly the opportunity to fulfil its mandate. We will then all answer to the people for the work that we have done. At this stage — at the very point where we are making a breakthrough — it would be very foolhardy to shy away from that. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Seamus Mallon: It is my very real pleasure to second the nomination of David Trimble as First Minister and Mark Durkan as Deputy First Minister. They each have personal strengths that will serve them well in the joint office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
I particularly welcome the fact that David Trimble is seeking re-election to the post of First Minister at a time when all the institutions provided for in the agreement can work to their full potential. I thank him for his courtesy and diligence during the time we worked together. He has not had an easy time politically. I wish him well, both as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party and as First Minister.
I have known Mark Durkan for a number of years — I will not specify how many. He has gained respect from all parts of the Chamber as Minister of Finance and Personnel. The Assembly can have every confidence in his ability, his personal integrity and his capacity to perform with distinction as Deputy First Minister. In many ways, he is the standard-bearer for a new younger generation in the Assembly and the community.
There is an old saying that two into one do not go, but, as ever, there are exceptions. Those elected to serve as First Minister and Deputy First Minister occupy a joint office. They rely on each other to make progress. They work together or not at all. It is a challenge that must be met if the vision of the Good Friday Agreement is to be fulfilled. I have every confidence that David Trimble and Mark Durkan will be able to fulfil that vision.
I thank Reg Empey, with whom I have worked periodically in certain roles. He is a fine young man. He will soon have served his time and — depending on the outcome today — there may be another period of apprenticeship. I thank Reg again for his courtesy and for the way in which we were able to work together.
Recent weeks have seen welcome progress in the putting of arms beyond use and towards further demilitarisation. I particularly welcome the recent report of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning which represented the removal of a major obstacle to the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Combined with the progress made across all elements of the agreement, that gives rise to the hope, belief and conviction that the better future offered by the agreement will be realised. I have no doubt that the vast majority of people want the new dispensation to work, and it will work whether the next step is taken today or in the future. Society wants to move forward on the basis of partnership, equality and mutual respect. The agreement provides the means to achieve a peaceful society which offers a future for all. As President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, said:
"It must be a peace without victory. Only a peace between equals can last, a peace the very principle of which is equality and a common participation in a common benefit."
Those words are as relevant today as they were when they were first spoken, and their relevance will grow as this process progresses. However, to grasp that opportunity we need stable and fully operational political institutions. Those institutions need strong, inclusive leadership, but they also need a respect for politics and an end to the game-playing, the foolishness and the ego-tripping. They need an end to the sham approach of taking part, with all its advantages, while at the same time publicly undermining the institutions. That is not leadership.
In many ways, leadership is a dull thing. It is about having the integrity to move on a position based on respect for the political process and for all of those in it. It is my belief that DavidTrimble and MarkDurkan — different people in many ways — are the right people jointly to lead the institutions and the people of the North of Ireland towards that new peace and stability. I beg to second.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I want to read a statement:
"Democracy dictates that before we will sit in an Executive with Sinn Féin we require a declaration that the ‘war’ is over, the standing down of ‘active service units’, the handing over of the remains of the ‘disappeared’, full co-operation with the Decommissioning Commission, an end to targeting and punishment beatings and actual disarmament itself."
All that has not happened, and those are the words of Mr Trimble, spoken on 26 May 1998. Sir Reg Empey, who proposed him, said on 30 August 1998 that
"an IRA arms handover would not be enough to give Sinn Féin seats on the Executive. If punishment beatings are continuing, if training, targeting, if units are still active on the ground, then the purposes of decommissioning would purely be fraudulent."
We are asked to believe the spin doctors and the rigged polls in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’, and to bow to past pressures and not open our eyes. The people — both Protestant and Roman Catholic — have opened their eyes. They have been told to look at what the Official Unionist Party has brought to them. Mr Trimble boasts of what he has brought to us. What has he brought? He has brought IRA/Sinn Féin to the heart of Government. Today, we heard that the leader of IRA/Sinn Féin is raising money for firemen and their families in America. What about the firemen and families that it murdered, blew up and shot? What hypocrisy.
The deputy leader of that party said that, if someone came to him and said that he or she had information that would lead to people being prosecuted for the Omagh tragedy, he would not tell that person to go to the police. In America, the leader of IRA/Sinn Féin said that the IRA has a different morality to that of the people who blew up the towers.
The people of Northern Ireland are not fools; they will not be fooled any longer. We must remember, "you cannot fool all of the people all of the time". Sooner or later, the matter must come to the country. We were told that cross-border bodies that are not answerable to the Assembly would not be formed — that has happened. We were told that terrorists who were put away by the process of the law could not be released, but killers and others have been. The Prime Minister wrote graffiti on the walls and tried to deceive the people of this country. The RUC has been destroyed. Think about those people who, under the shadow of night, took the badge of the RUC from outside its headquarters before the specified time. What more is there to come?
We have seen the British Government spend thousands of pounds to fly in propagandists to take photographs of the dismantling of security towers. No photographs have been taken of the so-called act of decommissioning. Why not? Surely, if it is an honourable, ground-breaking move, IRA/Sinn Féin should be proud of it. They are not. An amnesty is now proposed for those on the run. Such proposals have nothing to do with the agreement; they are additions to it.
Changes to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 have been suggested. It was unfortunate that, when Mr Mallon spoke about them, he quoted Woodrow Wilson, who, after making that statement, was thrown out of office. That is some comfort for Mr Trimble today. Mr Mandelson told us that the Act would not be changed.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Dia daoibh go léir. I was pleased to hear Peter Robinson bring up the subject of the trip to South Africa that I went on several years ago. There was a technical debate on cross-community support and sufficient consensus. However, Peter Robinson conveniently ignored the fact that the South African peace process was successful because it was an inclusive process and because there were people of courage in South Africa who wanted to end the hatred and division of the past. We are on that journey. The Middle East is also on that journey. South Africa is ahead of us, and we are ahead of the Middle East. We intend to continue to move forward.
I am very pleased to give my vote and my party’s vote to David Trimble and Mark Durkan as First Minister and Deputy First Minister. We owe a debt of gratitude to the former Deputy First Minister, Séamus Mallon. He was a highly esteemed and respected Deputy First Minister, who made a wonderful contribution to the peace process. We thank him very much for that.
For the past decade we have been on a journey which has presented genuine difficulties for all sides. However, the process is about building a new future for all of us and for our children. The process ensures that the past does not become the future. That presents a challenge for everyone — Republicans, Nationalists, Unionists and Loyalists. This is an inclusive process, and everyone shares responsibilities, decision-making and accountability. The politics of exclusion belong in the past. We can make this work by building and bedding down the institutions. We must fulfil the mandate given to us by our electorate — the overwhelming majority of the electorate. No one said that this would be easy.
Last week, the IRA, in a historic and groundbreaking move, liberated the peace process. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Martin McGuinness: The move was not made without causing great difficulties for Irish Republicans. Republicans will have great difficulty dealing with this, but political leaders have a collective responsibility to grasp the opportunity that we were given last week and use it to best effect for the collective good of society. These institutions are not the preserve of one party or, indeed, of all the parties. These are the people’s institutions. We have a contract with the electorate to work for the people and deliver what all the people want. We have a mandate to resolve a long-standing conflict. We have accomplished much, and we have much more to accomplish. We have made progress despite the odds. The institutions are working; they are popular and successful. They also allow us to work collectively.
I am pleased that, although the process has been difficult from the beginning, we are seeing the pro-agreement parties come together. The Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Women’s Coalition, the Alliance Party and the PUP are coming together. The people who are outnumbered are those who live in the past — the tiny number of Assembly Members who live in the past. No matter what happens today, we will continue to make progress. I was disappointed that Peter Weir and Pauline Armitage were not prepared to talk with me so that I could attempt to allay their fears. However, that is a matter for them. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Martin McGuinness: They can answer to history and our children. My last words will be a short verse of a poem —

A Member: Sit down.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is for the Speaker to decide when Members stand up and sit down, but the Member has come to the end of his time.

Mr David Ford: On behalf of my Colleagues, I support the proposal for the nomination of Mr Trimble and Mr Durkan, just as we did three years ago when it was proposed that Mr Trimble and Mr Mallon take the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
First, I thank Séamus Mallon for all that he has done during his time as Deputy First Minister. That is certainly not to say that the Alliance Party agrees with everything that he has done — we have had several exchanges with him in the Chamber. However, he held an important office, which he took on at a difficult time, and he contributed to the best of his ability. It is appropriate that that should be recognised in the Chamber today.
I would also like to thank Reg Empey — whom I trust is nearing the end of his short-term apprenticeship — for what he has done in recent weeks in conjunction with Séamus Mallon.
There was a democratic mandate in the votes that returned all of us to the Assembly on the ticket of an Ulster Unionist and an SDLP member taking on these roles. It is tragic that although over 70% of us will vote for that ticket today, the arcane rules will deny an election. If the vote of 70% of the Chamber is not carried because of one or two votes within Unionism, I have no doubt that some people will put the blame on the Alliance Party. In July 1998 the Alliance Party cast five votes within its "Centre" designation for an Ulster Unionist/ SDLP ticket. We will do exactly the same today. Let us be quite clear about where the blame and the fault lie. It does not lie with those of us who have been consistent, have supported the institutions and have sought to make the Assembly work. The blame will lie with those who were elected as Ulster Unionists but who failed to support their leader. The fault will lie with a voting system that prevents such a majority from carrying the vote.
We do not need a short-term fix. However, we must look urgently at the rules to ensure that the will of the people, as carried out by their mandated, elected representatives, can be effective regardless of the way in which the current difficulties have arisen. If the vote does not pass today, it is not the end of the road, because a great deal has been achieved and much progress has been made, even recently. Regardless of the criticisms of individual decisions, there is a popular will that the Assembly should succeed and that the institutions should function. I might criticise the Executive’s achievements so far — and I trust that I will have the opportunity to continue to criticise them in a constructive way — but there is no doubt that what the Executive have achieved to date is better than achievements under direct rule and previous Administrations. We are not trying to protect David Trimble. Whether he wants our protection is another matter. We want to use our votes and influence to protect the agreement, to secure the institutions and to ensure that progress continues to be made. That is the scenario that all of us will face when the vote is taken. However, a better alternative would be for those who were elected as Ulster Unionists to cast their vote for an Ulster Unionist leader and to ensure that the motion is passed by a majority and that it is also in accordance with the arcane rules that we are forced to abide by.

Mr Patrick Roche: The truly momentous decision that will be made today will influence the future of Northern Ireland. That decision will be made against the dark backdrop not only of what happened in America on 11 September but of the events in Northern Ireland throughout 30 years of terrorism. There are two simple reasons that that parallel is not inappropriate. There is no distinction between the evil intent that drove the planes into the twin towers and that behind what has happened in Northern Ireland. The evil intent that firebombed the twin towers is precisely the same evil intent that placed firebombs in the La Mon House Hotel.
The terrorism that took place in Northern Ireland had no legitimacy, and I say that regardless of the attempts that are being made to distinguish the so-called freedom fighters of the Republican movement from those who killed so many people in the United States on 11 September. That is another reason that there is nothing inappropriate in running those two things together as the dark backdrop against which we make this decision. What happened in Northern Ireland was devoid of legitimacy, for the simple reason that no citizens in Northern Ireland were ever denied their freedom. A child could demolish the logic of the arguments that have been put forward in an attempt to legitimise their pursuit of terrorism.
If the Assembly decides in favour of the appointment of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, we will do more than blur the distinction between terrorism and democracy: we will legitimise and elevate terrorism and debase and corrupt democracy. We will lay the foundation for a criminalisation of our society, already a major problem. That will be detrimental to the future of our society. First, the representatives of terrorism have been placed in Government. Secondly, terrorist prisoners were released because they were affiliated to an organisation on ceasefire — a ceasefire that could not be broken even by multiple murder or any other form of criminality. Now there is to be an amnesty for those who have so far escaped the courts. Furthermore, we have had the destruction of the police force that stood between the law-abiding citizen and the terrorist. That is the elevation and legitimisation of terrorism, the crowning act of which took place recently, involving Mr de Chastelain. What happened was not the decommissioning of a murderous arsenal in such a way as to represent a renunciation of violence, it was a recognition by two sovereign Governments — [Interruption].

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are we discussing the re-election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, or are we denigrating Gen de Chastelain? What is the purpose of the debate?

Mr Speaker: Please continue, Mr Roche.

Mr Patrick Roche: There was no authentic renunciation of violence or anything that could remotely be construed as such. It was a recognition by two sovereign Governments of the right of an illegal and criminal organisation to hold onto its arms and, if needs be, to dispose of them at its will. In other words, it was a legitimisation of the holding of a terrorist arsenal.
If the motion is successful, we will have the elevation of terrorism and the debasement of democracy. It is not only those who are committed to Unionism who must resist that; anyone who represents the decency that still exists in Northern Ireland must vote to prevent it.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I express my support for Mr Mallon, who has been through difficult times in the Assembly. He once said that at times we turned the colour of his face to almost the colour of his hair with our patching up and breaking down. Through it all, he remained calm and encouraging.
I am delighted to support the nomination of Mr Trimble and Mr Durkan. We should remind ourselves of how far we have come, not just in the past few weeks, but in the past few years. In the Chamber, we often forget that. On 10 April 1998, we declared our intention to do something different for Northern Ireland.
On 22 May those best intentions were endorsed by the majority of the people, despite misgivings on policing, power sharing, a partitionist Assembly and prisoners.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Does the Member agree that it has been implied that every prisoner who has been released from jail has become involved in activities that could bring down the whole process? The Member agreed that the Tory Government released 254 Republican and Loyalist life-sentence prisoners without any deals on 15 December 1994 — the day on which exploratory talks started.

Mr Robert McCartney: No murderers were released then.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Mr McCartney has just made a statement. Every one of those 254, including myself, had served indeterminate sentences, which means that they were life sentences.

Prof Monica McWilliams: There were many milestones during the process that led up to the talks, including the release and return of prisoners between Christmas and the new year. It was difficult, but we should remember that it was difficult for the victims too. If we do return the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, we should remember the sacrifice and hurt that they have experienced. In the acrimony of parliamentary debates their suffering is sometimes forgotten.
Nonetheless, we did bring a dynamic of creativity to the process, and during the past few weeks that dynamic has been restored. There have been some important events, and they have been as good as Good Friday. Peace building all over the world depends on the introduction of dynamics at the least expected moment, and given those events, we should be ashamed of ourselves if we do not bring Northern Ireland out of the limbo that it has been in since 1 July 2001.
I express my gratitude to Sir Reg Empey for filling the position since 1 July, but Northern Ireland needs a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister. There will be acrimony if we do not elect them today, and we have seen enough of that in the past. It is time to return consensus government to Northern Ireland. It has worked; it will work; and it must work.
It is time also to pledge our intention to work with the coalition Government. It is unique and unprecedented, but so is Northern Ireland. People concentrate on bad behaviour, on poor and disastrous events of the past, on the wrong behaviour that we witness too often in our streets, villages and communities. Only the leadership of the Assembly can create the necessary framework to change that. We have done our best today, and we expect other parties to play their parts as well.
I am glad that we have this opportunity to support the nomination of Mr Trimble, and I welcome the nomination of Mark Durkan as Deputy First Minister. I am sure that he too will bring a wonderful voice of leadership to the community, because he is known to speak with the voice of consensus. I support the nominations.

Mr Robert McCartney: No one in the Assembly doubts that I oppose the re-election of David Trimble. I have listened to the usual cant and hypocrisy about the good works that have been done. I have listened to Reg Empey talk about the difference between the publicity given to the events in south Armagh and the secrecy that surrounds the alleged act of decommissioning last week. We should also remember the speech that the Republic’s Foreign Minister, Mr Cowen, gave in New York on Tuesday.
He said that the British Government must move speedily to remove the hardware of war from south Armagh and from west Tyrone to show people that politics worked. As far as I am aware, no listening device or observation post has ever brought about the death of anyone, but Kalashnikovs, surface-to-air missiles and Semtex have.
That shows the hypocrisy not only of those comparisons but of Reg Empey’s attempt to persuade the Assembly and the people of Northern Ireland that what happened last week amounted to an act of decommissioning that they could accept. That party would accept anything — literally anything — to stay in office, to have their cars and emoluments, to posture that they are doing something under devolved government that has not been done before. What is the state of the Health Service? What is the state of the economy of Northern Ireland? What is the state of transport? All of them are worse now than they were before.
Séamus Mallon — that avowed democrat — should know all about the procedures of democracy that were distorted and disfigured by his mock resignation and that have been further defiled by what has happened here today concerning re-designation. Mr Martin McGuinness prattled on about decommissioning. Mr McGuinness, Mr Adams and Mr Pat Doherty undoubtedly consulted their fellow members of the IRA Army Council, Mr Keenan, Mr Ferris, "Slab" Murphy and others, to decide what they should do. They represented to the world that they were distant from the people to whom they were talking.
Monica McWilliams prattled on about consensus. She said that we must have consensus — as she and her Colleague Jane Morrice were attempting to undermine, as Peter Robinson so graphically pointed out, the very fundamentals of consensus and cross-community approval that were the alleged linchpins of the agreement. Martin McGuinness said that there was no pressure to exclude parties. I have never exerted pressure to exclude democratic parties from the Assembly. But I am opposed to members of the IRA Army Council being in charge of the education of our children. I am opposed to including terrorists in Government. [Interruption].

Mr John Kelly: What about the terrorists beside you?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Robert McCartney: As for this mock suggestion that some act of decommissioning has taken place, no one believes that. The arch-appeaser, Mr Trimble, has entered the Chamber. Mr Trimble told us that 22 May 2000 was the magical date for decommissioning; it never happened. Mr Trimble offered to resign if decommissioning did not happen by January 2000; it did not happen. Mr Trimble was conned in May 2000 by a target date for decommissioning of June 2001; it never happened. Mr Trimble, Sir Reg Empey and their party have been conned into believing that decommissioning will occur as a result of the events of last week. Even Gen de Chastelain confirmed that this was a one-off event; there was no suggestion of any continuum. We have reached the stage where the gombeens of Ulster Unionism will literally accept anything as long as they can stay in their jobs, get their money and get on with it.

Mr Edwin Poots: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to make a ruling on remarks made by Mr John Kelly during Mr McCartney’s speech, when he said, "What about the terrorists beside you?" I am not aware that either Cedric Wilson or Mr Dodds has ever been convicted of a terrorist offence, and I ask you to rule on that matter.

Mr Speaker: It is impossible for the Speaker to rule on remarks that have been made from a sedentary position. I cannot hear them, therefore I cannot rule on them. The Member has made some remarks about what he heard. He may well have heard them, but it is not possible to hear them from the Chair because, as Members know, remarks made from a sedentary position are not picked up by the microphones.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was put out of the House for making a remark from a sedentary position — a remark that you admitted then that you had not heard. Why, therefore, can you not make a ruling on this point?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will resume his seat. He knows well that if he questions the Chair he is in defiance of it and that he may end up leaving again. I suggest that it may not be in his best interests to press the matter at this juncture.

Mr Edwin Poots: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you study Hansard and rule further on the matter?

Mr Speaker: Mr Poots does not appear to have been listening to what I said. A remark made from a sedentary position is generally made too far from the microphones to be picked up by Hansard. I shall be reading Hansard with considerable interest tomorrow with regard to several matters — the next five minutes will, I suspect, determine how much interest.
Question put.
The Assembly proceeded to a Division.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Mr Donovan McClelland: Dr Paisley, a point of order.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order. No Speaker is entitled to leave the Chair nor should the Chair be unmanned at any proceedings of the Assembly.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will resume his seat.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I was called for a point of order.

Mr Speaker: The Member will resume his seat. I seek to be a proper servant of the Assembly, and many Members, including the Member who was on his feet, frequently ask to have my ear in order to ask a question of procedure.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 72; Noes 30.
Ayes
Nationalist:
Mr Attwood, Mr Bradley, Mr Byrne, Mrs Courtney, Ms de Brún, Mr A Doherty, Mr Durkan, Dr Farren, Mr Fee, Mr Gallagher, Ms Hanna, Dr Hendron, Mr G Kelly, Mr J Kelly, Ms Lewsley, Mr A Maginness, Mr Mallon, Mr Maskey, Mr McClelland, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McGrady, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McHugh, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMenamin, Mr McNamee, Ms McWilliams, Mr Molloy, Mr C Murphy, Mr M Murphy, Mrs Nelis, Mr O’Connor, Dr O’Hagan, Mr ONeill, Ms Ramsey, Ms Rodgers, Mr Tierney.
Unionist:
Dr Adamson, Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr B Bell, Dr Birnie, Mrs Carson, Mr Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Mr Dalton, Mr Davis, Sir Reg Empey, Mr Ervine, Mr Foster, Sir John Gorman, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hussey, Mr B Hutchinson, Mr Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, Mr Leslie, Mr McClarty, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Ms Morrice, Mr Nesbitt, Mr K Robinson, Mr Savage, Mr Trimble, Mr J Wilson.
Other:
Mrs E Bell, Mr Close, Mr Ford, Mr McCarthy, Mr Neeson.
Noes
Unionist:
Mr Agnew, Ms Armitage, Mr Berry, Mr Boyd, Mr Campbell, Mr Carrick, Mr Clyde, Mr Dodds, Mr Douglas, Mr Gibson, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Kane, Mr McCartney, Rev Dr William McCrea, Mr Morrow, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mrs I Robinson, Mr M Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Roche, Mr Shannon, Mr Watson, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr C Wilson, Mr S Wilson.
Total Votes 102 Total Ayes 72 ( 70.6%) Nationalist Votes 38 Nationalist Ayes 38 ( 100.0%) Unionist Votes 59 Unionist Ayes 29 ( 49.2%)
Question accordingly negatived (cross-community vote).

Mr Speaker: No Members having been elected, the procedure may be repeated after a period specified by the Speaker. I may wish to consult with Members in that regard. Of course, there are other matters regarding the standing of the Assembly that will be decided outside the Chamber without the involvement of those who sit in the Chamber.
Adjourned at 1.04 pm.